The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1887-03-11
Interesting Decision.
PERSONS BITTEN BY DOGS ENTITLED TO
RECOVER DAMAGES FROM THEIR
OWNERS

In the State vs. MDermott the New
Jersey Supreme Court holds that a per-
son bitten by dog may recover dam
ages from the owner upon evidence
that the dog, with the knowledge of
the owner, had a mischievous tendency
TO bite, whether in anger or not in
either case the persons bitten would
suffer injury. A mischievous propen-
sity, from which injury is the natural
result. In the case of Hudson vs.. Rob-
erts, Excb. 500, it appears that the
plaintiff was walking in the street
wearing red handkerchief. The bull
of defendant, ordinarily gentle and
quiet, and not known to have gored
any person previously, was being driv-
Ell along the street when he attacked
and gored the plaintiff. The defen-
dent said that the red handkerchief did
it. and that he knew the bull would
run at any thing red. The plaintiff re-
covered, The bull had no hostile feel
ing against the man he injured, and no
disposition TO gore mankind, but be-
cause of his mischievous propensity to
rush at red object, OF which his own
er knew, it was held that when he
caused injury to plaintiff, through that
propensity, his owner should pay dam
ages. A domesticated bear may hug
. man until his ribs be broken. This
may be the mode adopted by the ami
NAL to manifest his affection yet if he
had on other occasions previously
shown his affection in that way, caus-
ing injury, and his owner knew Of such
propensity, the owner would have to
pay damages caused by breaking the
mans ribs. 1t is true that the bear is
classed with animals ,fer@ nature, and
that the presumption, in such case,
would be that although domesticated,
the animal had relapsed into his wild
habits, yet although the presumption
on the question oe scienter would be
against the owner, he might be able to
prove that the habit of embracn" per-
sons did not proceed from the savage
nature of .he be put, under the in
fuence of civilization, from a cultivat-
ed affection. But this proof would be
held to be mischievous, because hurtful
to those who were the objects of the
bears affection. In the case of Oaks
VS.. Spaulding, 40 Vi. 347, it appears
that Mrs. OAKS was driving COWS home
from pasture, when the ram of Spauld-
ing attacked and injured her.
1t was shown that the ram had pro-
pensity to butt mankind, and that the
defendent knew it, but it did not ap-
pear whether the previous outings by
the ram proceeded from an ugly dis
position, or from the exuberance of a
playful spirit ; yet it was held that the
defendant was liable. 1t did not cure
the hurt nor assuage the pain of the
woman to be told that the ram when
he butted her, was only in one of his
accustomed sportive moods. 1t might
have been fun for the ram, but it was
hurtful to Mrs. Oaks. 1t was a mis-
chievous propensit. whether, proceed
ing from ugliness of temper or from
good nature, which, if known to the
owner of the ram, made him liable for
damages resulting from such propen-
sity. There is no doubt that in cases
of animals not naturally inclind to do
mischief previous mischievous pro-
pensity must be shown, and the scienter
clearly established. The gist of the
action is not the keeping of the animal
but the keeping with knowledge Of
mischievous propensity, whether pro-
ceeding from savage disposition OF
not. The conclusion is that the plain.
tiff below having shown by his proof
that on several previous occasions The
dog in question had bitten various per
SONS on the hand, with knowledge Of
the defendent, be was entitled to re-
cover, even if the habit did not pro
coed from ferocious nature, but was
the result of mischievous propensity
~ Y. Christian Adoocate.